History of the Roman Catholic Church

[raumzeitmc2]

OK; now we are getting somewhere. I don’t think anyone has ever told me that, despite the assertive whinings from some about how I have been told “many times.” I actually do not recall hearing anyone tell me this before.

Because this topic is concerning history of the Catholic Church; I would be interested in hearing more about this point that you mention. Can you tell me where, in official Catholic writing, I can find this?

I believe this Wikipedia article on the Four Marks of the Church may help. The opening begins:

The Four Marks of the Church, sometimes referred to as the Marks of the Church or the Marks of the True Church, are a group of four characteristics describing the Universal or *Catholic Church *as established by Jesus Christ.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church

 

[bobregan]

Let’s be honest with one another… you are not here to learn Catholic History!

No. All the Rites share the same theology and doctrine. The differences are linguistic and cultural only.

“Denomination” means to separarate and divide from. Catholic Rites do not do this.

Of course! This is what researchers call “bias”. It means that most people, even scientists, find what they expect because they are looking for it.

I doubt that any demonstration on this thread would be pursuasive to you.

I am certain this is true in your experience.

For myself, I must confess that I spent 3 years in an Evangelical Seminary. There I took a course in Historical Theology, where I began for the first time to read the early Church Fathers. I realized that they were all Catholic, and that the NT Church was Catholic. I am still amazed that it was Protestant scholarly evidence that led me to this discovery.

I am sure it seems that way to you, since your experience is so limited. Most Europeans and Americans have had no exposure to the other 22 Rites in the Catholic Church, and even most Catholics don’t know they exist. You can easily see in your NT that the disciples began to be called “Christians” in Antioch. From there, the Church continued to spread North, East, and South. Though the gospel eventually made it’s way to Rome, the 22 “Eastern” Rites (non-Roman) share the same doctrine. If you wish to discredit Catholicism, you will have to find a way to dispatch all these other Catholic Rites that are non-Roman.

I am glad we are in agreement that Jesus always keeps His promises. However, it lies upon you to “prove” the the Chuch of the NT is not Catholic. All of history demonstrates that it is.

Of course not! A “denomination” is something that has been separated and divided from something else. Since the Catholic faith was, and is, whole and entire since the crucifixion, the only "denominations’ are those who have departed from it in varying degrees.

I should think so!

The Pope does not need or desire any “bowing down”. However, by making such a comment, you clarify that it is rebellion and disobedience that drives your dissention.

Also the word “denomination” came from the Catholic Church trying to put a name to all the differing on theology Protestant sects that started after Luther. There is only one “Church”, the Catholic Church. These “denominations” or eclesial communities are not a church, per se. They are communities that gather for praise and worship that heretically seperated from the Catholic Church.

I am Roman Catholic, but I’d like to attend a Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and receive Communion. I hear the Mass is beautiful.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

“Prolific use of the Stasi against the Donatists???”

Wow! That’s quite an accusation!

Can you please explain what you mean by it?

And surely you don’t disagree that the Church has every right to defend herself against unjust and savage aggressors, whether they be Donatists, Calvinists, Lutherans, or whatever?

Again, I don’t follow. Please elaborate.

**The dispute between the Catholics and+ Donatists was marked with violence and extreme bitterness from the beginning. Augustine was to play his part .
See THE EARLY CHURCH, by Henry Chadwick. pg219-225.

Also, Augustine of Hippo. pge 203 for Augustine’s use of the Police and the State
In this book Brown said that Augustine, “wrote the only justification of repression of heretics”

Either Brown or one of his reveiwers declared that S.Augustine was,“The first theorist of the inquisition.” It was said that Augustine, "managed to destroy Donatism not only by intellectual persusaion, but by physical oppression. Summary, I&V Clary.

There are lots more .
In " Augustine through the Ages." Fitzgerald and Cavadini.
The authors report that the Council of Carthage, [395] in which Augustine played a large part, requested the state to pass laws through which Donatisits couldd be tried and punished for heresy. The state replied,(if I understand quite aright,) that there were laws enough. In 405 The law went through.**

**Regarding the right of the Church to defend itself?

Defending one’s right is one thing , but for catholics to use the State and its oppressive apparatus to further their own ends is another.
In1641 The Church in England rallied against Parliament in a War of Religion, that was in fact an attempt to preserve the Ancient Church. But to propose the use of the state is quite something else.**

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Also the word “denomination” came from the Catholic Church trying to put a name to all the differing on theology Protestant sects that started after Luther. There is only one “Church”, the Catholic Church. These “denominations” or eclesial communities are not a church, per se. They are communities that gather for praise and worship that heretically seperated from the Catholic Church.

Heaven alone knows how many sects have sprung up in the the Church (and alongside) in every century since her founding. Minucius Felix (between 160 and 300) speaks of “the multitude of sects in all ages” (Octavius, ch. 5).

Augustine too, in many of his writings, speaks of the “many heretics” with which he had to contend, some of whom even wished “to be called Catholic”:

And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church ALONE, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquired where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.

Against the Letter of Mani, 4:5;

The Faith of the Early Fathers, William A. Jurgens, Vol 3, p. 51, no. 1580. ISBN 0814610218

Furthermore, Augustine, referring to these countless “denominations” sprung up in his day, says they are not “congregations but segregations” (“Congregationibus vel potius segregationibus”).

Wherefore whosoever are baptized in the congregations, or separations rather, of schismatics or heretics, although they have not been born again of the Spirit, like as it were to Ishmael, who was Abraham’s son after the flesh; not like Isaac, who was his son after the Spirit, because by promise; yet when they come to the Catholic Church, and are joined to the fellowship of the Spirit which without the Church they beyond doubt had not, the washing of the flesh is not repeated in their case.

For “this form of godliness” was not wanting to them even when they were without; but there is added to them “the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” which cannot be given but within. Before they were Catholics indeed, they were as they of whom the Apostle says, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

Latin (first paragraph):

Quicumque in schismaticis vel hereticis **congregationibus vel potius segregationibus **baptizantur, quamvis non renati sint Spiritu, tamquam Ismaeli similes, qui secundum carnem natus est Abrahae, non sicut Isaac, qui secundum spiritum, quia per repromissionem; tamen, cum ad Catholicam veniunt, & societati Spiritus aggregantur, quem forsi procul dubio non habebant, non eis repetitur lavacrum carnis.”

Above, segregationibus is translated as separations rather than segregations. But segregations is the translation found in The Works of Saint Augustine, (1990), Edmund Hill, trans., (Sermons 20-50, Vol. 2, Sermon 21:32, ISBN 9780911782783)

Sermon 21:32 (Sermon 71:32, Patrologia_Latina 38, 462). On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xii. 32, “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” Or, “on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.”
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_VI/Sermons/Sermon_XXI

Of course, there is considerably more. The above is but the merest sampling. But for now, I’ll just close with this quote from (Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386), who implies by his words the existence of multitudes of sects in his day.

…for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, “And in one Holy Catholic Church;” that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated.

And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church.

For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it Ephesians 5:25, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all Galatians 4:26; which before was barren, but now has many children.

Catechetical Lecture, 18:26.

 

[Protestant101]

Also the word “denomination” came from the Catholic Church trying to put a name to all the differing on theology Protestant sects that started after Luther. There is only one “Church”, the Catholic Church. These “denominations” or eclesial communities are not a church, per se. They are communities that gather for praise and worship that heretically seperated from the Catholic Church.

I am Roman Catholic, but I’d like to attend a Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and receive Communion. I hear the Mass is beautiful.

There is only “one Church;” but it is not proven here that that would be limited to one denomination, such as Catholics. It is only being claimed, but no one can prove it, so it seems.

 

[guanophore]

OK; now we are getting somewhere. I don’t think anyone has ever told me that, despite the assertive whinings from some about how I have been told “many times.” I actually do not recall hearing anyone tell me this before.

Because this topic is concerning history of the Catholic Church; I would be interested in hearing more about this point that you mention. Can you tell me where, in official Catholic writing, I can find this?

The NT is the very first “official Catholic writing”.

That is why these events are recorded there by the first Catholics.

You can also see pg. 54 of Evangelum Vitae

 

[guanophore]

There is only “one Church;” but it is not proven here that that would be limited to one denomination, such as Catholics. It is only being claimed, but no one can prove it, so it seems.

I agree. The identity of the Church as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic is not subject to proof. We can show some elements of this, such as Apostolic succession and the nature of Catholicity through history, but I agree it is impossible to “prove” holiness.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The dispute between the Catholics and+ Donatists was marked with violence and extreme bitterness from the beginning. Augustine was to play his part .
See THE EARLY CHURCH, by Henry Chadwick. pg219-225.

Also, Augustine of Hippo. pge 203 for Augustine’s use of the Police and the State
In this book Brown said that Augustine, “wrote the only justification of repression of heretics”

No offense my friend, but I believe you are misinformed about the historical record.

The fact is, the Donatists were an *extremely violent and vicious *group, and it was they, not Augustine, not the Church, who were the persecutors!

Augustine tried everything he could to reign in these madmen, to show these unspeakable people kindness and Christian charity, and to help them recover at least some shreds of their missing sanity.

But for the most part, they were simply incorrigible!

But don’t take my word for it; simply read the history for yourself.

Here’s but a tiny sampling. After reading it, tell me if you still think that, against such wicked people, strong measures may not have indeed been called for.

I have learned that the Circumcelliones and clergy of the Donatist faction belonging to the district of Hippo, whom the guardians of public order had brought to trial for their deeds, have been examined by your Excellency, and that the most of them have confessed their share in the *violent death *which the presbyter Restitutus suffered at their hands, and in the beating of Innocentius, another Catholic presbyter, as well as in digging out the eye and cutting off the finger of the said Innocentius.

Augustine, Letter 133:1
newadvent.org/fathers/1102133.htm

6.You have therefore no ground for complaint against us: nay more, the clemency of the Catholic Church would have led us to desist from even enforcing these decrees of the emperors, had not your clergy and Circumcelliones, disturbing our peace, and destroying us by their most monstrous crimes and furious deeds of violence, compelled us to have these decrees revived and put in force again.

For before these more recent edicts of which you complain had come into Africa, these desperadoes laid ambush for our bishops on their journeys, abused our clergy with savage blows, and assaulted our laity in the same most cruel manner, and set fire to their habitations.

Not contented with beating us with bludgeons and killing some with the sword, they even, with incredible ingenuity in crime,* throw lime mixed with acid ? vitriol] into our people’s eyes to blind them*.

For pillaging our houses, moreover, they have fashioned huge and formidable implements, armed with which they wander here and there, breathing out threats of slaughter, rapine, burning of houses and blinding of our eyes; by which things we have been constrained in the first instance to complain to you, venerable sir, begging you to consider how, under these so-called terrible laws of Catholic emperors, many, nay all of you, who say that you are the victims of persecution, are settled in peace in the possessions which were your own, or which you have* taken from others*, while we suffer such unheard-of wrongs at the hands of your party.

You say that you are persecuted, while we are killed with clubs and swords by your armed men. You say that you are persecuted, while our houses are pillaged by your armed robbers.

You say that you are persecuted, while many of us have our eyesight destroyed by the lime and acid with which your men are armed for the purpose.

…They live as robbers, they die as Circumcelliones, they are honoured as martyrs! Nay, I do injustice to robbers in this comparison; for we have never heard of robbers destroying the eyesight of those whom they have plundered: they indeed take away those whom they kill from the light, but they do not take away the light from those whom they leave in life.

Augustine, Letter 88.
newadvent.org/fathers/1102088.htm

Truth be told, the Donatists and their allies, like the Calvinists and the Lutherans and many other so-called “evangelicals” of later centuries, were some of the vilest and most brutal persecutors the Church has ever been forced to suffer!

Either Brown or one of his reveiwers declared that S.Augustine was,“The first theorist of the inquisition.” It was said that Augustine, "managed to destroy Donatism not only by intellectual persusaion, but by physical oppression. Summary, I&V Clary.

There are lots more .
In " Augustine through the Ages." Fitzgerald and Cavadini.
The authors report that the Council of Carthage, [395] in which Augustine played a large part, requested the state to pass laws through which Donatisits couldd be tried and punished for heresy. The state replied,(if I understand quite aright,) that there were laws enough. In 405 The law went through.

As far as “first theorist of the inquisition” goes, please, just read this:

Nobody Expects the Mosaic Inquisition! By James Akin (now Jimmy Akin).

**Regarding the right of the Church to defend itself?

Defending one’s right is one thing , but for catholics to use the State and its oppressive apparatus to further their own ends is another.**

Any evidence of this?

 

[bobregan]

There is only “one Church;” but it is not proven here that that would be limited to one denomination, such as Catholics. It is only being claimed, but no one can prove it, so it seems.

The Niceaen Creed in the 5th century declares “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church” (capital “C” for Catholic), referring to what is today the Catholic Church. Many Protestant groups like to think “catholic” with a small “c”, meaning universal, as in an invisible, all beliefs and believers welcome. This is not true. The original writers of the Creed meant a visible Church which is “One…Holy…Catholic…apostolic” , referring to the Church that progresses through the century on a straight, lineage right down to the current Catholic Church. Protestant "denominations’ that have left that “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church” cannot lay claim to the Church (Catholic) that the original penning of the Creed had referred to. To believe that “catholic” means universal (all denominations and believers in Christ) in a Protestant sense is to change the original meaning of the word “Catholic” . This is not what the writers of the Creed intended. It refers to the Roman Catholic Church, no other Christian body or group.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

**I have stressed the right of Catholics to defend themselves in my earlier letter.

What I am talking about is the use of the police, or the state to gain the Church’s ends. I.E. Laws to enable Catholics to gain Donatist property!
See the Council of Carthage 395 AD.

But we can go further, I commented on another thread that the Popes Power and or Authority, stems from the position of the Bishop of Rome as virtually the Emperors Parish priest.

The Bishop of Rome used the state police to pursue Bishops who did not approve of his autocratic methods. I give you two examples .Plus where the Papal power though given by the Church stemmed from the State by request!

A. The Council of Sardica, Where at the Emperors behest the Church, gave the Pope the right to choose people to adjudicate in quarrels amongst western patriarchs that they themselves could not settle.

B.
When S.Hilary spoke plainly about the attempts by the Bishop of Rome to interfere in the French Church’s business and asserted the independence of Gallic Catholics whilst refusing to plead or explain before the Pope. The Bishop of Rome pleaded with the Civil Power to put S.Hilary under arrest. Some time later when Hilary slipped away from his guards the Bishop applied to Valentinian 111rd . This Emperor issued a rescript or order for the arrest of S.Hilary!

C. There were later comments made at a Roman Synod under Bishop of Rome’s Chairmanship thanking the Emperor for what he and his predecessors had done in this sphere of authority.
(The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome! Puller.pgs146/7 -200/201.]**

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

There is only “one Church;” but it is not proven here that that would be limited to one denomination, such as Catholics. It is only being claimed, but no one can prove it, so it seems.

You’re not getting it, kid. The Lord said to Peter, '…upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH…" The Lord came to form ONE church. That Church, by the witness of history, is The Catholic Church, the Church He promised to be with until the end of the world. There are no other Christian churches. I’m Catholic. I belong to a Church. You’re not Catholic. You belong to a sect.

As to proof, you’ve lied and deceived enough in this thread to make it clear you have no interest in proof of anything. You’re here to bash the Catholic Church and you’re fooling no one but yourself.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The Niceaen Creed in the 5th century declares “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church” (capital “C” for Catholic), referring to what is today the Catholic Church…To believe that “catholic” means universal (all denominations and believers in Christ) in a Protestant sense is to change the original meaning of the word “Catholic” . This is not what the writers of the Creed intended. It refers to the Roman Catholic Church, no other Christian body or group.

Good message, Bob. Just one correction. The Nicene Creed originated in the East and the term “Catholic” applies to all Catholic churches, East and West and includes the Orthodox churches. Together we form the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ.

 

[bobregan]

Good message, Bob. Just one correction. The Nicene Creed originated in the East and the term “Catholic” applies to all Catholic churches, East and West and includes the Orthodox churches. Together we form the one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ.

Correct. I was in a rush and omitted that.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

**I have stressed the right of Catholics to defend themselves in my earlier letter.

What I am talking about is the use of the police, or the state to gain the Church’s ends. I.E. Laws to enable Catholics to gain Donatist property!
See the Council of Carthage 395 AD. **

You mean enable Catholics to recover Catholic property, stolen by those* thieving* Donatists, don’t you?!

But we can go further, I commented on another thread that the Popes Power and or Authority, stems from the position of the Bishop of Rome as virtually the Emperors Parish priest.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

There is only “one Church;” but it is not proven here that that would be limited to one denomination, such as Catholics. It is only being claimed, but no one can prove it, so it seems.

Statements such as this is typical of our culture which has grown up in the midst of denominationalism.

The first sentence also begs the question, i.e. how do you know that the Catholic Church is just another denomination?

 

[Protestant101]

I agree. The identity of the Church as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic is not subject to proof. We can show some elements of this, such as Apostolic succession and the nature of Catholicity through history, but I agree it is impossible to “prove” holiness.

I did not say it was “impossible to prove holiness.” But what I would like to hear is more explanation about what you said re the identity of the Church not being subject to proof. I have never heard it put like that. Can you explain?

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101: To give you a very direct answer, the Catholic Church began in the spring of c. 33 A.D., on the day of Pentecost.

I hope that this is a clear enough (and not too cowardly) response to your question.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Actually; I appreciate your answer very much. Thankyou. What I would like to ask is for a reference from officially approved Catholc writings that would support your statement of 33 AD

 

[raumzeitmc2]

What I would like to ask is for a reference from officially approved Catholc writings that would support your statement of 33 AD

Here’s an official statement:

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged…

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

LUMEN GENTIUM, Chapter II, The People of God,

, SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964.LUMEN GENTIUM

See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994):

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

1. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?

Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.

He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

 

[guanophore]

I did not say it was “impossible to prove holiness.”

You said that the claims of the Church have not been “proved”. I agree that “Holy” is something that is beyond the realm of human science. (proofs).

But what I would like to hear is more explanation about what you said re the identity of the Church not being subject to proof. I have never heard it put like that. Can you explain?

“Proof” belongs to the realm of human science. Whereas, the nature of the Church is beyond human science (supernatural). Although Christ did supply many “proofs”, ultimately it is a matter of faith.

Actually; I appreciate your answer very much. Thankyou. What I would like to ask is for a reference from officially approved Catholc writings that would support your statement of 33 AD

The NT is the earliest officially approved Catholic writing that exists.

Acccording to the information contained in it, Jesus was 30 when He began his ministry, was active in it for three years, then was crucified. 50 days later, the HS was poured out on the fledgling Church.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The NT is the earliest officially approved Catholic writing that exists.

But of course! I mean, after all, who is there who has not heard of the EpistlesCatholic?